10 Reasons to Believe That Oswald Was Innocent

[Michael T. Griffith]

We're still waiting for WC apologists to cite a single case in the known history of forensic science where an FMJ bullet shattered into dozens of tiny fragments inside a skull, not to mention where the FMJ bullet also deposited a sizable fragment and several tiny fragments on the rear outer table of the skull, and deposited two fragments at the opposite end of the skull at least 1 inch away from any other fragment and at least 1 inch below the nearest fragment trail.

[John Corbett]

We're still waiting for WC apologists to cite a single case in the known history of forensic science where an FMJ bullet shattered into dozens of tiny fragments inside a skull, not to mention where the FMJ bullet also deposited a sizable fragment and several tiny fragments on the rear outer table of the skull, and deposited two fragments at the opposite end of the skull at least 1 inch away from any other fragment and at least 1 inch below the nearest fragment trail.

Why don't you hold your breath while you wait.

WC defenders are smart enough to know that every shooting is a unique event which cannot be duplicated. We are also smart enough to know that cases of human skulls being shot with FMJ bullets, most of which occurred during wartime, aren't going to be scrutinized to the degree that the JFK assassination was, so there is a very small sample size to compare to. It is stating the obvious to point out that for something to be possible, it only has to happen once.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Why don't you hold your breath while you wait.

Wow, that's an ugly, hateful comment, a comment that seems to voice a death wish. I'm a bit surprised the moderators didn't jump on this comment.

WC defenders are smart enough to know that every shooting is a unique event which cannot be duplicated. We are also smart enough to know that cases of human skulls being shot with FMJ bullets, most of which occurred during wartime, aren't going to be scrutinized to the degree that the JFK assassination was, so there is a very small sample size to compare to. It is stating the obvious to point out that for something to be possible, it only has to happen once.

You keep repeating this silly, phony dodge. As I've noted before, this lame evasion denies the very reason for and value of the fields of forensic science and wound ballistics.

Are you ever going to explain the fact that the most frequently encountered bullet designs in clinical and forensic practice are FMJ bullets, lead bullets, and semi-jacketed bullets? It is hilarious that you keep pretending that most gunshot cases involving FMJ bullets happen during wartime. No, every year a sizable percentage of gunshot cases involve FMJ ammo. Gee, maybe that's why forensic sources have much to say about the behavior of FMJ bullets, just as they have much to say about the behavior of lead ammo and semi-jacketed bullets, hey? 

Speaking of which, are you ever going to explain why forensic sources, such as DiMaio's internationally recognized handbook Gunshot Wounds, state that FMJ bullets will not shatter into dozens of small fragments when striking bone and that if x-rays show dozens of tiny fragments this rules out FMJ ammo?

Are you ever going to explain why the Failure Analysis headshot wound ballistics test failed to produce a single FMJ bullet that shattered into dozens of tiny fragments, much less an FMJ bullet that deposited several small fragments on the rear outer table of the skull upon penetration?

Are you ever going to explain the fact that FMJ bullets are designed not to break apart into multiple fragments in order to increase the degree of penetration? If you read forensic sources you'll learn that only FMJ bullets that are traveling at a high velocity have any chance of breaking up into multiple fragments. Humm, could this be why the skull x-rays from the WC's headshot wound ballistics test show minimal bullet fragmentation?

Apparently you are clueless about the fact that SBT defenders cite this very fact -- i.e., that FMJ bullets are designed not to shatter in order to increase their penetrating power -- as evidence that a single FMJ bullet could penetrate seven layers of human skin, smash 4 inches of rib bone, and shatter a radius bone without losing its structure, with its lands and grooves remaining intact, and while losing less than 4 grains of its substance. Of course, they're doing so to defend an impossible scenario that goes well beyond what an FMJ bullet can endure before incurring substantial damage, as every single SBT wound ballistics test has proven.

Furthermore, you still have not explained the fact that every expert who has commented on the velocity of the ammo that hit JFK's head as indicated by the damage to the skull has said that the damage shows the ammo was traveling at a high velocity, whereas the alleged murder weapon was not a high-velocity rifle.

This issue of the behavior of the ammo that hit JFK's head is a shining example of the refusal of WC apologists to face facts. WC critics began raising this issue in the 1970s, and Howard Donahue, a court-certified firearms and ballistics experts, brought the issue to the forefront in the 1990s. Lattimer and then Fackler tried to explain the issue with their own headshot wound-ballistics tests, but both tests failed to duplicate the fragmentation seen in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays. Indeed, in Fackler's Failure Analysis test, the FMJ bullets failed to fragment at all. They suffered visible deformation, but did not fragment.

The simple, demonstrable fact of the matter is that the ammo that hit JFK's head could not have been FMJ ammo.     

[John Corbett]

Wow, that's an ugly, hateful comment, a comment that seems to voice a death wish. I'm a bit surprised the moderators didn't jump on this comment.

You keep repeating this silly, phony dodge. As I've noted before, this lame evasion denies the very reason for and value of the fields of forensic science and wound ballistics.

i tried my best to explain the obvious to you but I just can't figure out how to dumb it down enough for you to understand.

Are you ever going to explain the fact that the most frequently encountered bullet designs in clinical and forensic practice are FMJ bullets, lead bullets, and semi-jacketed bullets?

No shit.

It is hilarious that you keep pretending that most gunshot cases involving FMJ bullets happen during wartime. No, every year a sizable percentage of gunshot cases involve FMJ ammo. Gee, maybe that's why forensic sources have much to say about the behavior of FMJ bullets, just as they have much to say about the behavior of lead ammo and semi-jacketed bullets, hey? 

The only thing relevant to this discussion are FMJ bullets fired by rifles into skulls und yes, most of those occur during wartime. Homicides committed with rifles are   a small fraction of all homicides and of those, are committed with FMJ bullets, and a still smaller fraction involve gunshot wounds to the skull. I guess you aren't bright enough to know that FMJ, bullets fired from handguns aren't going to behave like those fired from rifles.

Speaking of which, are you ever going to explain why forensic sources, such as DiMaio's internationally recognized handbook Gunshot Wounds, state that FMJ bullets will not shatter into dozens of small fragments when striking bone and that if x-rays show dozens of tiny fragments this rules out FMJ ammo?

Why is it you never quote these sources. Why do you always give us your spin on what they say?

Are you ever going to explain why the Failure Analysis headshot wound ballistics test failed to produce a single FMJ bullet that shattered into dozens of tiny fragments, much less an FMJ bullet that deposited several small fragments on the rear outer table of the skull upon penetration?

Since you don't quote these studies, i see no point in responding to your version of what these studies have concluded, given the number of times you completely misrepresent these results.

I do find it ironic that you would cite Failure Analysis given that they conclude almost four decades ago that the shots that hit JFK were fired from the 6th floor sniper's nest.

I was unable to find an online source for the Failure Analysis study, but in searching for it, I did come across this more recent study by Science Direct:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0379073822000949

Are you ever going to explain the fact that FMJ bullets are designed not to break apart into multiple fragments in order to increase the degree of penetration? If you read forensic sources you'll learn that only FMJ bullets that are traveling at a high velocity have any chance of breaking up into multiple fragments. Humm, could this be why the skull x-rays from the WC's headshot wound ballistics test show minimal bullet fragmentation?

All you ever do is present your dumbass conclusions. Quote a competent source if you expect me to respond.

Apparently you are clueless about the fact that SBT defenders cite this very fact -- i.e., that FMJ bullets are designed not to shatter in order to increase their penetrating power -- as evidence that a single FMJ bullet could penetrate seven layers of human skin, smash 4 inches of rib bone, and shatter a radius bone without losing its structure, with its lands and grooves remaining intact, and while losing less than 4 grains of its substance. Of course, they're doing so to defend an impossible scenario that goes well beyond what an FMJ bullet can endure before incurring substantial damage, as every single SBT wound ballistics test has proven.

You seem to get dumber with each post. you are comparing an FMJ bullet that passed through soft tissue of two torsos und tumbled before striking bone to one that struck nose first into a skull without passing through another object first.

Furthermore, you still have not explained the fact that every expert who has commented on the velocity of the ammo that hit JFK's head as indicated by the damage to the skull has said that the damage shows the ammo was traveling at a high velocity, whereas the alleged murder weapon was not a high-velocity rifle.

Every forensic expert who has seen the medical evidence and commented on it has concluded that JFK was shot from above end behind in the head and upper back and the only recovered bullets had been fired by Oswald's Carcano rifle, but you don't care.

This issue of the behavior of the ammo that hit JFK's head is a shining example of the refusal of WC apologists to face facts. WC critics began raising this issue in the 1970s, and Howard Donahue, a court-certified firearms and ballistics experts, brought the issue to the forefront in the 1990s. Lattimer and then Fackler tried to explain the issue with their own headshot wound-ballistics tests, but both tests failed to duplicate the fragmentation seen in the JFK autopsy skull x-rays. Indeed, in Fackler's Failure Analysis test, the FMJ bullets failed to fragment at all. They suffered visible deformation, but did not fragment.

And still you refuse to quote your sources.

The simple, demonstrable fact of the matter is that the ammo that hit JFK's head could not have been FMJ ammo.     

We only have your dumbass opinion on that because you steadfastly refuse to ever quote your sources. The reason for that is obvious. If you actually quoted your sources, you wouldn't be able to misrepresent their findings.

[Michael T. Griffith]

i tried my best to explain the obvious to you but I just can't figure out how to dumb it down enough for you to understand.

No &^%^$.
 
The only thing relevant to this discussion are FMJ bullets fired by rifles into skulls und yes, most of those occur during wartime. Homicides committed with rifles are   a small fraction of all homicides and of those, are committed with FMJ bullets, and a still smaller fraction involve gunshot wounds to the skull. I guess you aren't bright enough to know that FMJ, bullets fired from handguns aren't going to behave like those fired from rifles.

Why is it you never quote these sources. Why do you always give us your spin on what they say?
Since you don't quote these studies, i see no point in responding to your version of what these studies have concluded, given the number of times you completely misrepresent these results.

I do find it ironic that you would cite Failure Analysis given that they conclude almost four decades ago that the shots that hit JFK were fired from the 6th floor sniper's nest.

I was unable to find an online source for the Failure Analysis study, but in searching for it, I did come across this more recent study by Science Direct:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0379073822000949

All you ever do is present your dumbass conclusions. Quote a competent source if you expect me to respond.

You seem to get dumber with each post. you are comparing an FMJ bullet that passed through soft tissue of two torsos und tumbled before striking bone to one that struck nose first into a skull without passing through another object first.

Every forensic expert who has seen the medical evidence and commented on it has concluded that JFK was shot from above end behind in the head and upper back and the only recovered bullets had been fired by Oswald's Carcano rifle, but you don't care.

And still you refuse to quote your sources.

We only have your dumbass opinion on that because you steadfastly refuse to ever quote your sources. The reason for that is obvious. If you actually quoted your sources, you wouldn't be able to misrepresent their findings.

Readers who have seen our previous exchanges on this issue will see that you are now just lying through your teeth and are continuing to simply make up nonsense, not to acting like a rude teenager who knows he's losing the argument--and losing it badly.

They'll see that you are still ducking the skull x-rays from the WC's headshot wound ballistics test, which show minimal bullet fragmentation. They'll see that I've quoted a number of forensic and ballistics experts on the behavior of FMJ bullets, and that you obviously have no answer for the cold, hard facts about FMJ bullet behavior.

They will find it odd that you comically accuse me of not providing sources when I have provided numerous sources (including page numbers therein) for my statements, and when you almost never provide any sources to back up your bogus claims.

They will find it especially odd that you are still claiming that "every forensic expert" who has examined and commented on the JFK medical evidence has "concluded JFK was shot from above and behind," when I've proved to you that this is not true, and when this does not even address the issue of the ammo's behavior. They will also find it quite revealing that you once again allude to Guinn's debunked NAA findings. And on and on I could go.

You see, I know that you're never going to deal with this issue in an honest, credible manner. I realize that. You've proved in spades. You've done nothing but duck and dodge and grasp and blunder in trying to explain the fact that the ammo that hit JFK's head behaved nothing like FMJ ammo.

Let me refresh your memory with quotes from Dr. DiMaio's internationally acclaimed forensic book Gunshot Wounds that I've presented to you several times now and that you just keep dodging:

An x-ray of an individual shot with a full metal-jacketed rifle bullet . . . usually fails to reveal any bullet fragments at all even if the bullet has perforated bone such as the skull or spine.If any fragments are seen, they are very sparse in number. . . .(Gunshot Wounds, p. 166)

In x-rays of through-and-through gunshot wounds, the presence of small fragments of metal along the wound track virtually rules out full metal-jacketed ammunition.. . . In rare instances involving full metal-jacketed centerfire rifle bullets, a few small, dust-like fragments of lead may be seen on x-ray if the bullet perforates bone. One of the most characteristic x-rays and one that will indicate the type of weapon and ammunition used is that seen from centerfire rifles firing hunting ammunition. In such a case, one will see a 'lead snowstorm'. . . . Such a picture rules out full metal-jacketed rifle ammunition or a shotgun slug. (Gunshot Wounds, p. 318, emphasis added)

Again, did you catch that? Did you see where DiMaio said (1) in the "rare" cases when FMJ bullets do fragment if they penetrate bone, they will only leave "a few" fragments, and (2) if an x-ray shows a "lead snowstorm," this "rules out" FMJ ammo?

But, of course, I'm fairly certain that you'll just continue to lie, duck, and dodge about this fact.